How To Trim the Deficit by Nearly $600 Billion: A Blueprint for Spending Less and Spending Smarter on National Security

By BRYAN RAHIJA

The savings come from cutting unneeded weapons, reforms to the military's health care system, reeling in spending on service contracts, and reducing the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe. The report notes that we could also reduce the deficit by downblending highly-enriched uranium and selling it on the market in its low-enriched form.

Here's a closer look at what Congress can do to reduce the deficit and how much of a reduction it would yield:

“We’re giving Congress and President Obama a roadmap on where to start. These are realistic targets and don’t include the far more significant long-term savings of implementing enhanced administration and oversight of national security spending and contracting.”

And Taxpayers for Common Sense President Ryan Alexander had this to say:

“This is an assembly of solid numbers based on our collective expertise and experience. These should not be the hard choices—there is room for much more. The only way this country is going to climb out of our deep budgetary hole is to put everything on the table, and that includes defense spending, revenue, and entitlements. Eliminating the fat at the Pentagon will make our country fiscally stronger and more secure.”

As we've noted in our press release, the Senate's "Gang of Six" has proposed substantial cuts in defense spending as well—their plan, however, lacks specifics.

Comments

Reducing wasteful spending is good, and may be all we can accomplish at this time. The reality is that if this country is going to retain a strong economy, it must change its priorities. Using high-tech weaponry to try to control other countries is not working, and it's leaving us with mountains of debt. China has said its priority will be to develop internal markets. (Whether is does this is another matter.) The U.S. has many needs that are not being met. We cannot "grow" our way out of a crisis of over-production in the advanced capitalist countries. Especially since we are now competing with developing countries like China, India, Brazil, and others. It is time to address un-met needs like housing, healthcare, and environmental degredation.

I support these cuts in military spending and wish that ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were also included in the plan above, which would save huge amounts of money including that spent on "contractors" (mercenaries) there.
I request that we use the terms "military spending" and "war spending" to describe these expenses. We should stop using the terms "defense spending" and "national security spending" which are inaccurate since the expenses have little to do with defending the country or enhancing our national security. The use of these terms tends to support the exorbitant expenses.

I don't know the author's background, nor political affiliation, but he sounds like a republican disguised as fiscal conservatist. There is an adage that says: Extreme situations cal for extreme measures, ergo, I' not even an "expert on the economy but I do believe that yo first have to look at what works best. You can't use a band aid in an open heart surgery. You have to use a bypass.
According to an article about the same subject, it is, was reported that just allowing Bush's tax cuts for th very rich would cut 700 billions for the deficit and let's not forget that during Bill Clinton's tenure, we hade the best of times, at least in recent memory and that from there on, when Bush allowed Wall Street play with taxpayer's money like it was monopoly, is the true reason we are in this spending hole that threatens in becoming a black hole, where nobody can escape. And that is for starters.
Now, if the situation is so dire, how come the author goes on a killing rampage of ants,but allows the elephants roam free. That doesn't make sense. I don't se him including the wars, and according to experts, keeping one soldier at war amounts to one million and if you multiply that figure times the number of troops at war, and I'm talking the overt ones and it comes to 904 billions, give or take a billion. Add to that the criminal, secret operations conducted by this "Christian and democratic" nation and the amount will be enough, I'm sure, to pay all our debts and be able to keep the 850 billions that we pay in interest alone.
When people, supposedly experts, come up with esoteric solutions to extreme situations, it becomes just another band aid used in an open heart surgery. The author's solution is a sophism to the nth degree. It appears that something is being done to solve the second great depression, but this is an effort in futility; like trying to put the ocean into a swimming pool and that is impossible.

I think we could save even more money by replacing the two F-35 variants with less expensive bi-planes. Or how about 3.95 kites? F-18 can't compete with emerging threats. Great plane in its time, very cost efficient and easy to maintain now, a bean counter's dream. One problem, it has to survive and protect the fleet, that is it's primary purpose, not to look good on a spread sheet.

F-35 might very well be the over priced dog people say it is, that would not surprise me. But we better come up with a plan C and quick, the F-18 is nothing more than a 5 year a best answer.